DTIC IAL.. AIR WAR COLLEGE Ln RESEARCH REPORT N AN ANALYSIS OF THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR: MILITARY STRATEGY AND POLITICAL OBJECTIVES COLONEL MAEDH AYED AL-LIHAIBI ROYAL SAUDI AIR FORCE " DTIC 1989 ELECTE FEB 0 1990 • -" " . I)._ED FOR PO I C AIR UNIVERSITY RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNITED STATES AIR FORCE MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA UNLIMITED /
49
Embed
An Analysis of the Iran-Iraq War: Military Strategy and Political ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DTIC IAL..
AIR WAR COLLEGE
Ln RESEARCH REPORT
N AN ANALYSIS OF THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR:
MILITARY STRATEGY AND POLITICAL OBJECTIVES
COLONEL MAEDH AYED AL-LIHAIBI
ROYAL SAUDI AIR FORCE
" DTIC1989 ELECTE
FEB 0 1990
• -" " . I)._ED FOR PO I CAIR UNIVERSITY RELEASE; DISTRIBUTIONUNITED STATES AIR FORCEMAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA UNLIMITED /
AIR WAR COLLEGEAIR UNIVERSITY
AN ANALYSIS OF THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR:MILITARY STRATEGY AND POLITICAL OBJECTIVES
by
Maedh Ayed Al-LihaibiColonel, Royal Saudi Air Force
A DEFENSE ANALYTICAL STUDY SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY
IN
FULFILLMENT OF THE CURRICULUM
REQUIREMENT
Advisor: Colonel William Lofgren
MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA
May 1989
DISCLAIMER
This study represents the views of the author and does
not necessarily reflect the official opinion of any Saudian
official, Ministry of Defense and Aviation (MODA), or any other
Saudian department. Also it does not necessarily reflect the
official opinion of the Air War College or the Department of the
Air Force. In accordance with Air Force Regulation 110-8, it is
not copyrighted but is the property of the US Government.
Loan copies of this document may be obtained through
the interlibrary loan desk of Air University Library, Maxwell
Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-5564 (Telephone: [205) 293-7223
or AUTOVON 875-7223).
li
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: An Analysis of the Iran-Iraq War: Military Strategy and
Political Objectives
AUTHOR: Maedh Ayed Al-Lihaibi, Colonel, Royal Saudi Air Force
. The Iran-Iraq War was one of the longest and the
costliest wars of the Twentieth Century. This conflict did not
begin only because of their historical and geographic
differences. It also started due to deep ideological and
political differences as well. This paper examines the
political and the military objectives of both countries. It
describes the four phases of the war, an analysis of the
strategy and the tactics involved, and the weaponry used.
Finally, it concludes with important military and political
lessons learned. , (, ( , ,,-
Aceossion For
NTIS GRA&I 9"DTIC TAB 0Unannounced 0Justifloation
BySDstributlon/
Availability Codes
Avail and/orDiet Speolal
iii -
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Colonel Maedh Ayed Al-Lihaibi is a member of the Royal
Saudi Air Force. He is a graduate of King Faisal Air Academy,
in 1970, with a B.S. in Aerosciences. Colonel Lihaibi completed
Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell Air Force Base in 1986.
He has served as both operation and commanding officer of a
fighter squadron. He is a graduate of the Air War College,
Class of 1989 and has recently been appointed as commander of a
flying wing.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
DISCLAIMER ........................
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. ............... .. ..
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. ............... iii
LIST OF TABLES ........................ v
LIST OF MAPS. ........................
I ~INTRODUCTION .....................
II HISTORICAL BACKGROUND............. ...... 2Iran-Iraq Relations Before the War:.........3The War and the Objectives. .............. 4Comparative Force Strength. .............. 5
III PHASES OF THE-WAR ............................. 17Phase 1: The Iraq Offensive'
22 September 1980 -November 1980. ......... 17Phase 2: Stalemate
17 November 1980 -26 September 1981 .. ..... 18Phase 3: Iranian Counter Offensive
27 September 1981 - October 1983 .. ......... 18Phase 4: The Stalemate .............. 19
IV CONDUCT OF THE WAR. ...................21The War at Sea. ..................... 21The Tanker War. ...................... 21The Air War.. .................... 23Shift in Iraq Air Capabilities .. .......... 24Chemical Warfare. .....................26War of the Cities .....................26
V ANALYSIS OF THE WAR ................... 28Objectives and Strategy. .............. 28
VI CONCLUSION. .................... 33
BIBLIOGRAPHY. ....................... 41
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 OPPOSING FORCESI RAN-IRAQ.....................6
2 . . . AND WHO'S GETTING HIT. .. ......... 22
3 IRAN-IRAQ ATTACKS .................. 23
vi
LIST OF MAPS
MAP PAGE
1 IRAN-IRAQThe Theater of Conflict ..... ............. .36
2 SHATT AL ARAB AND ABADAN ISLAND .... .......... 37
3 IRANApproximate Territory Captured by IraqNovember 1980 ........ .................. 38
4 IRANChanges in the Front Line inKhuzestan Province ....... ................ .39
5 LARAK ISLAND IN THE MOUTHOF STRAIT OF HORMUZ ...... ............... .40
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Iran-Iraq War, which lasted for almost eight years,
was one of the costliest conflicts of the century with more than
a million killed and a million wounded on both sides. The
western public's attention was first aroused at the outbreak of
the Iran-Iraq War; as it was assumed that the flow of oil would
be endangered and the 1973 oil shock would be repeated.
The historic roots of today's problem go back to the
era of the Persian and Ottoman Empires; when a peace and border
agreement was signed between these two empires in 1639. But the
22 September 1980 war did not start only because of historical
or geographic disputes. This war was largely ideological as
well. The two countries fought very cruelly and bitterly. They
targeted civilians and used chemical warfare. Both countries
used everything available to survive and to avoid total defeat.
It is my intention in this paper to investigate the two
countries' political objectives and their military strategies.
CHAPTER II
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Iran-Iraq War has ancient historical roots. For
over a thousand years, ethnic and territorial disputes between
Semitic Arabs and Aryan Persians have periodically disturbed the
peace in the Middle East.
The cultural difference that has separated the Arabs
and Persians may be traced to at least the Seventh Century, when
the victorious Arab armies extended Islam east of the Zagros
Mountains. Persia, now Iran, has been the bastion of the Shiite
branch of Islam while Iraq's political elites have oriented the
country toward Suni Islam.
The first peace and border agreement was signed between
the two nations in 1639, but the border disputes exploded again
in 1818 and another agreement was signed in 1823. After Britain
and Russia intervened in 1837, another border agreement was also
signed.
In the Twentieth Century, the dispute centered around
the Shatt Al Arab River. The river forms the border between
Iraq and Iran for 55 miles until it empties into the Arabian
Gulf. The Shatt and the region around it have strategic and
economic importance for both countries, but particularly for
Iraq since it is Iraq's principle maritime window to the world.
2
Iran-Iraq Relations Before the War
The Shah of Iran believed that Iraq and the Soviet
Union were Iran's primary threats. (2:6) In his effort to keep
Iraqi forces occupied, the Shah encouraged a Kurdish rebellion
within Iraq and supplied the rebels with aid and weapons. In
November 1971, Iran occupied three islands belonging to United
Arab Emirates (UAE). These islands lie at the entrance of the
Strait of Hormuz. On 3 December 1971, Iraq broke its diplomatic
relations with Iran; the beginning of 1972 witnessed several
clashes of arms between the two states. ( 1:1 4 ) The clashes
escalated along the borders while the Kurd's activities
increased in northern Iraq. When the Civil War expanded and
threatened Iraq in 1975, Iraq's Saddam Hussein was forced to do
something to stop it. Arab and international efforts were made
to mediate the situation. Algiers played an active role in a
settlement which resulted in the signing of the Algiers
Agreement on March 1975 and set the border between the two
countries as the Thalweg Line (the middle of the river channel).
Saddam Hussein also expelled the Ayatollah Khomeini from Iraq to
fulfill the Algiers accord.
After the Shah was deposed and Khomeini came to power
in 1979 in an Islamic Revolution, Khomeini called on Iraqi
Shiites to overthrow the Iraq Government. The Iraqis did not
welcome the Islamic Revolution which Khomeini wanted to expand
to include the Shilte holy cities in Iraq: Al Basra, Karbla,
and Al Najaf.
3
On 24 December 1979, Iraq demanded a revision of the
1975 agreement and reactivating previous agreements of 1913 and
1937 concerning water and land borders. Iran rejected Iraq's
demands and ordered the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Iraq
considered the closure of the Strait as a declaration of war by
Iran against the Iraqi Government. The same day, the Iraqi
Revolutionary Council ordered the Iraqi Armed Forces to invade
Iran. (1:15)
The War and the Objectives
Iraq launched a preemptive strike against Iran on
22 September 1980. Baghdad stated its war objectives on
28 September 1980 which included that Iran:
1. Recognize Iraq's legitimate and sovereign rights over its
land and water, particularly the Shatt Al-Arab.
2. Refrain from interfering in Iraq's internal affairs.
3. Adhere to the principle of good, neighborly relations.
4. Return to the (UAE) the Iranian occupied islands.
There were also unannounced Iraqi objectives, such as:
1. Iraq wished to be the dominant state in the Gulf area
nationally, politically, and economically.
2. To secure its Baathist Government from Khomeini's stated
intent to overthrow it.
3. To destroy Iranian military power while Iran was weakened by
its revoluti.on and cutoff from United States' (US) supplies and
support.
4
4. To capture Khuzestan (with its Arab population) so that Iraq
could present Iran's new leadership with a situation that would
force a political settlement for the Shatt Al-Arab dispute
favoring the Iraqis.(1 :2 6 )
Iranian war objectives were stated in September 1980
and demanded that Iraq:
1. End its aggression by unconditional withdrawal from all
Iranian territory.
2. Acknowledge its war guilt and pay reparations.
3. Remove the Baathist Government and establish a Shiite
Government in Baghdad.
Comparative Force Strength
A comparison of the relative- strength of the military
balance as of 1988.(3:101 - 1 03)
5
TABLE 1
OPPOSING FORCES
Iran-Iraq
IRAN
GDP 1985/6: r 15,306 bn ($174.46 bn)
growth 1985/6: -1.5% 1986/7: -80%
Inflation 1986: 30% 1987: 50%
Debt 1986: $1.2 bn 1987: @ $2.5 bn
Def exp 1986/7: r 465 n ($5.90 bn)
1987/8: r 640 m ($8.96 bn)
Def bdgt 1988/90: r 580.00 bn ($8.69 bn)
$1 = r (1986/7: 78.76 (1987/8): 71.46
(1988/9): 66.74
r = rial
Population: 52,800,000+
13-17 18-22 23-32
Men 2,749,000 2,329,000 3,679,000
Women 2,548,000 2,187,000 3,457,000
6
TOTAL ARMED FORCES
ACTIVE: 604,500.Terms of service: 24-30 months.
RESERVES: Army: 350,000, ex-service volunteers.
ARMY: 305,000 (perhaps 250,000 conscripts).
@ 3 Army HQ.
4 mech div (each 3 bde: 9 armd, 18 mech bn).
6 inf div.
1 AB bde.
1 Special Forces div (4 bde).
Some indep armd, inf bde (incl 'coastal force').
12 SAM bn with Improved HAWK.
Ground Forces Air Support units.
RESERVE: 'Qods' bns (ex-service).
EQUIPMENT:
MBT: perhaps 1,000: T-54/-55, 260 Ch T-59, 150 T-62, some
At the outbreak of the war, the Iraqis' preemptive air
strikes against 10 airfields in Iran caused virtually no damage
since only runways were targeted. To excuse their pilots' poor
training, the Iraqis claimed that much of the Soviet ordnance
was faulty. Conversely, while Iran hit several Iraqi airfields,
it hit with considerable effectiveness.
However, the Iranian Air Force advantages, both in its
sophisticated American-built aircraft and in its pilot
proficiency, were hampered by inadequate spare parts, poor
23
maintenance, and Iranian suspicion of some of its pilots. A
number of the Iranian pilots defected with their aircraft to
Iraq or to other Gulf States.
Both sides avoided conflict in the air, especially over
the Gulf waters as they occasionally met at the same point in
the air space, but no air-to-air engagements resulted. Neither
side's air defenses was effective. The Iraqis had mostly Soviet
air defense nets which were ineffective mainly because of poor
Soviet training methods and unreliable equipment. Thus, the
Iranians found out that they could strike virtually anywhere in
Iraq by flying low-level.
The Iranians also used tactics such as those developed
by the United States in Vietnam to evade the Soviet Surface-
to-Air Missiles (SAMs). The Iranian air defense was largely
ineffective mainly due to poor maintenance or the lack of spare
parts for their HAWK missiles. Additionally, many aircraft from
both sides were lost to friendly fire due to poor air defense
integration systems. Close air support was very limited on both
sides. Helicopter gunships were used with some success against
tanks, but neither side had enough helicopters for large scale
operations.
Shift in Iraq Air Capabilities
When the Iraqis decided to interdict the Iranians' oil
shipping in the Gulf in 1983, Iraq had to lease five
Super-Entendard fighters with EXOCET missiles from France.
Previously Iraq had been bombing shipping in the Gulf waters
24
since May 1981, but these sorties were ineffective. Iraqi
success increased when they acquired the Super-Entendards, and
later with the acquisition of Mirage F-i fighters with their
air-to-air refueling capability. Both greatly improved the
Iraqis' effectiveness and long-range strike capability.
Interestingly, the Iraqi Air Force's French training
seems to have improved its performance enormously as rigid
Soviet-style tactics were abandoned. Pilot initiative was
encouraged and targets of opportunity were aggressively
attacked. It was ironic that the Iraqi Air Force improved its
opera.tions by abandoning the Soviet doctrine even while using
Soviet aircraft.(5 :9 57 )
The early part of 1985 saw a more confident Iraq Air
Force making as many as 300 daily sorties. Iraqis began
pounding Iranian economic targets on Kharg Island, Sirri Island,
Bander Khomeni Seaport, and oil refineries all over Iran. The
Iraqis also shocked Iran and many military observers when they
planned and executed attacks that involved 1,000-mile round
trips by Mirage F-ls using body-to-oody air refueling tactics on
targets close by Larak Island in the mouth of the Strait of
Hormuz. (Refer to Map 5, p. 40.)
By the beginning of 1988, Iraqi pilots were observed
employing a very well-planned and sophisticated mission. They
employed decoys to deceive the Iranian air defenses and early
warning, they maintained good command and control of their
25
aircraft over a very long distance from their home bases, and
they struck targets as far as Larak Island over the Gulf waters.
They also destroyed targets as far as the Caspian Sea, deep
inside the Iranian mainland. While there were improvements in
Iraqi tactics in the last few months before the cease fire.
There were also less Iranian air activities probably due to a
shortage of serviceable combat aircraft available to the Iranian
Air Force at that time.
Some sources claim that Iran was down to seven F-14s
(with downgraded radars), ten to fifteen F-5s, and twenty F-4s
at the end of the war. Because Iran had no effective maritime
aircraft, it was forced to use speedboats and Silkworm missile
attacks against commercial shipping in the Gulf waters in
retaliation for Iraqi air attacks.
Chemical Warfare
Iraq's use of chemical weapons was essentially
defensive and was quite effective in neutralizing Iranian
offensive operations. Apparently Iran also started using
chemical weapons on the battle front; specifically mustard gas
and phosgene. Meanwhile, with Iraq's introduction of effective
mobile defensive tactics in 1984, its use of chemical weapons
steadily declined. (5:956)
War of the Cities
In 1985, Iran acquired Soviet-made SCUD-A and B
surface-to-surface missiles with maximum ranges of 90 and 175
miles respectively. These missiles were able to hit Baghdad
26
from Iranian positions some 80 miles distant. Iraq was unable
to retaliate with its own SCUDs because Tehran is 320 miles from
the border. In 1987, Iraq struck back against Tehran with
nearly 150 missiles, after Iraq either by its own effort or
after seeking outside help, extended the SCUD-B missile range by
adding a booster stage. Meanwhile it is accurate to say that
the greatest damage the Iraq Air Force inflicted on Iran was as
the result of attacks of economic targets, not the surface-to-
surface missile attacks on the Iranian cities.
27
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF THE WAR
Objectives and StrateQy
1. The Iraqis' unlimited political objectives put a huge demand
on its military strategy and its Armed Forces that were
difficult to satisfy. The territorial objectives of securing
the Shatt Al-Arab waterway and occupying Kermanshah Province
were straight-forward military missions that required only the
occupation of these territories. Less limited and more
difficult were the further political objectives of overthrowing
Khomeini and establishing Iraq's stronger role in the Arabian
Gulf. These goals require nothing less than the decisive defeat
of the Iranian Army and Navy. Iraq's security policy of keeping
the Iraqis' casualties to a minimum was also less compatible
with the strategic and political objectives.
In all respects, the Iraqis' initial war strategy was
limited. On the other hand, Iran's initial war strategy was
for general war. For its part, Iran's political objective was
straight-forward and clear and that is the survival of the
so-called Islamic Revolution. Noticeably, Iran was also quick
to carry the war to Iraqi territory through air and naval raids
on strategic targets with 24 hours of the outbreak of the
war. (7:23-24)
28
2. Iraq wins early battle - but strategic decision may lead to
loss for war:
Instead of allowing his forces to advance until their
momentum was exhausted, Saddam Hussein ordered them to halt
while they were still moving steadily forward. This decision
saved Iran's Army from major defeat and gave it time to regroup,
and this decision led to a complete turnaround in the course of
the war. The Iraqi forces conquered the border but never
concentrated forces on the most critical front.
Forces were diverted to Abadan when they should have
been attacking Ahvaz and the air base at Dezful, where the
Iranian forces were. This strategy violated a considered must
of combat, concentrate on defeating the enemy's military
forces. (6:51-52)
3. Both sides ,,.-formed poorly during the initial stages of the
war:
The sophisticated weaponry possessed by both sides was
not ',sed as intended due to lack of technical expertise, as well
as a lack of training and understanding. Problems were
encountered by using tanks to attack built-up areas without
infantry support and many tanks were abandoned on the
battlefield because of inability to resupply.( 6 5859)
Both sides showed an inability to use combined arms
effectively. Logistics also caused the combat arms to suffer.
Lines of communication were long and subject to interdiction by
29
air and ground forces, and several offenses by Iran failed
because of lack of logistical support.
4. Air power is insignificant:
In general, the air forces were not a significant
factor in this war, although there was noticeable improvement in
the Iraqi Air Force tactics at the latter part of the war.
Possessing the most advanced war equipment is totally
ineffective if employed without a coherent strategic concept and
supporting operational plan.
Iraq's initial plan was apparently to destroy the
Iranian Air Forces on the ground. This plan reflected outdated
operational thinking and lack of adequate field intelligence
because Iran, like many other countries in the area, had learned
well the lesson and the value of airfield shelters after the
destruction of the Egyptian Air Force on the ground in the 1967
war. The Iraqis did not calculate accurately the number of
sorties required to ensure airfield destruction and the pilots'
accuracy was inadequate. The result was an ineffective attack
which did not affect Iran's air power as was intended.
Iran on the other hand, was lacking an overall concept
for its countervalue strategy which determined its target
selection. Iran's aggressive start was short-lived. It was
reported that within a month after the start of the war, Iran
lost 90 out of 200 operational combat aircraft due to Iraqi air
defences and some due to friendly defenses, and its air activity
became restricted due to manpower and material shortages.
30
Both countries employed their strike aircraft in
isolated raids rather than as integrated raids and there were a
few cases of massing strikes with limited success. Bombing was
routinely conducted from high altitude in order to avoid ground
defenses, with little damage to military and economic targets.
For example, Iraqi air strikes against Iran's Kharg Island oil
terminal continued from 1982 until just before the end of the
war, but failed to put this large and complex facility out of
action.
5. Strategic bombing ineffective:
Both countries improved in target selection throughout
the war. Both nations tried to break the will of the other to
fight by firing long-range surface-to-surface missiles mostly
after midnight against populated areas in Tehran and Baghdad.
But from a military point of view, the values of the attacks on
the population center, the "war of the cities" had been
virtually nil.(5 :958)
6. Close air support ineffective--except for helicopters:
Both sides used their attack helicopters with some
success. Iran first employed its Cobras to delay the Iraqi
advance. And the Iraqi used its attack helicopter quite
effectively to weaken the Iranians' thrust to advance inside the
Iraqis' borders at the latter parts of the war.
7. Air defenses ineffective:
Neither side was able to use its air defenses weapons
successfully. This was probably because of faulty maintenance
31
and lack of training. Iraq's ZSU-23-4s did not use radar to
track targets. Instead, fire was massed at a point in the air
in hopes that a plane would fly into it. (6 :4 5 ) Both sides
started the war with good air defense systems at least on paper,
but both failed to integrate their air defense elements into an
overall system, thus allowing the opposition to penetrate almost
unhindered. Iraq was forced to pull back some of its SA-6
brigades from its ground forces in Iran and redeploy them to
defend strategic targets, since SA-2 and SA-3 were not effective
against the Iranian pilots.
Both countries' employment of their interceptors for
air defense purposes was very limited due to the downing of so
many interceptors because of friendly air defenses.
During later stages of the war, Iran acquired improved
SAM defenses and succeeded in downing 2 to 3 high altitude
reconnaissance aircraft (MiG-25).
7. Although armed with modern, sophisticated weapons, either
side used them effectively.
8. Neither side demonstrated a capability for conducting
sustained air operations In support of clear cut objectives with
the exception to the Iraqis' Air Force campaign to cripple
Iran's economic ability to keep fighting.
9. Lack of real-time intelligence resulted in lost
opportunities to destroy vulnerable targets on the battlefield.
10. Neither side showed a capability for conducting effective
joint operations:
32
The exception to that was the Iranian occupation of
Al-Fao Peninsula in 1986 where the operation was conducted by a
combined force of regular army, revolutionary guard and naval
forces which trained for this operation for over a year. The
Iraqis also retook the same peninsula in 1988 with a coordinated
combined force.
11. Iraqi flexible, mobile defense is effective strategy:
This Iraqi strategy assumed that, with a numerical
superiority and the option of selecting the time and place to
attack, the Iranians would usually break through Iraq's forward
defenses. The mobile defense strategy called for the
less-mobile units to hold the line and channel the Iranian
breakthrough, while mobile units moved into place to destroy the
attackers. (5:956)
12. The reliance on external suppliers for weapons made the war
outcome subject to the mercy of other nations.
13. Nations can be expected to use prohibited weapons such as
chemical or nuclear weapons, if available to avoid total defeat.
Iraq's use of chemical weapons was essentially defensive, i.e.,
they were primarily employed to disrupt Iranian offensive and
not to launch Iraqi offenses.
Conclusion
The Iran-Iraq War caused grave economic deterioration,
loss of many lives, and wholesale attrition of abilities and
capabilities in the area. The conflict which was envisioned as
a short, limited, local war; did not achieve its objectives of
33
imposing Iraq's will over Iran. The Iraqi offensive against
Iran's mainland, united the Iranian people in support of their
Armed Forces.
On both sides, the art of strategy, objectives, and
operation were not always applied properly. Instead, changing
strategy, random objectives, and inaccurate forward planning
were the norm. The war results were disastrous to both
countries militarily, politically, economically, and socially,
and the war's adverse effect will remain for years to come,
overshadowing the whole area.
Needless to say, it would be unwise to speculate that
the cease fire will hold indefinitely, particularly considering
the two countries' deep, historical, and ideological
differences. However, several lessons may be drawn from the
assessment of the Iran-Iraq War:
1. Once there is noalternative of using force to achieve
political objectives, nations must consider how they intend to
end the war.
2. The objective should be obtainable. And the military and
political strategy should be suitable.
3. The strategic plan must be flexible to accommodate any
changes as the war continues.
4. Strategy must envision operation all the time.
5. Nations can have the most powerful modern weapons available
to them, but still have no combat capability, if they do not
34
have the proper Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence (C31), and the proper training.
6. Military leaders and politicians must understand that the
actual war is different from war on paper.
35
map I_____
~~ken
KI 1"NAusbb LA.
IranIF-. N
SA-1 @IAV
The Theater ot Conflict ~
*
Pnterneisoalboundary wait PER 5IAAN
~ bSqfld' - G UL F
0 so o 10 1SO60i.
Arabia *-
36
Map?2
4-4
4 Shatt al Arab andPKhororgmI Abadan Island
:- 4
- -. ~Abodan L''
0 -1
rMo alAra
4gn AbdnIsad
KuwaetPERIANGUL
VI Al 37
As Iubv~onivah (
N
%_W*Shirn
i44
KPPOINCE
Territory Captured b) Iraq &%.1s A*
Novmbe 19VSIW90tGL
~ keqi u.I~dKuwaitr
38
Wi**m.. to-lI W r'I
4
Changes In the Front UneIn Khuzestan Province
-.--- ftmism b"110"v
- Poe fins, Apr* .1 M- - Fro 16n Pin m iabw 1110.
Lino wo awpommme.
an ra
rm ' %
Al KNUZESTA
Affwoh
r a,
Kuwaitz
An 0V NC
39
I ARMI ISLAND IN THE )~pUTH ~ Ii-. OF STRAIT OP HO~~ ~ ~I
Ij aC ~.: -
1 j
I
4 I ii >011>'I-
I.1
C' C)'a ,.
-4
C ~-/ ~{'~ ,z
I* .
*3 'V "~ II ~i*' -
ifI
4 VI
* I..U ( 3I
IA 1 ~I II I
zo I
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdel-Halim, Ahmed M. Five War Zones. Washington: PergamonBrassey's, 1986, p.14.
Hichman, William F. Ravaged and Reborn: The Iranian Army,1982, Washington DC, The Brookings Institution, 1982,p. 3.
International Institute for Strategic Studies. Military Balance1988 - 1989, London, International Institute forStrategic Studies, 1988, pp. 100-103.
Mark, Clyde R. The Persian Gulf, 1987: A Chronology of Events.CRS Report for Congress, Foreign Affairs and NationalDefense Division, February 10, 1988.
Segal, David. "The Iran-Iraq War: A Military Analysis."Foreign Affairs, Vol 66, No 5, Summer 1988, pp. 950-958.
Sonnenberg, Robert E. The Iran-Iraq War: Strategy ofStalemate. April 1985, pp. 51-52.
Staudenmaier, William 0. "A Strategic Analysis of the Gulf War.Strategic Studies Institute" (U.S. Army War College),25 January 1982, p. 18.
Tyler, Patrick E. and others. "The Relentless War in theWater." The Washington Post National Weekly Edition,October 26, 1987, p. 10.